“
TL;DR
The central result was the identification of eight consistent themes, with Dutch and American professionals prioritizing health benefits while British participants focused on defining the screening population and test.
BMC Cancer · 8 authors, 6 centres
This summary was generated by AI from a single paper. It has not been reviewed by a clinician and is not clinical advice. Verify against the source before acting on it.
The central result was the identification of eight consistent themes, with Dutch and American professionals prioritizing health benefits while British participants focused on defining the screening population and test.
The study used concept mapping, a mixed-methods consensus-building methodology, to explore the perspectives of 29 Dutch, 20 British, and 18 American healthcare professionals. Participants generated statements on barriers, facilitators, advantages, and other factors related to screening, which were then sorted and rated. Analysis identified eight consistent themes across countries: Benefits, Harms, Clinical effectiveness concerns, Screening population, Screening modality, Resources, Ownership, and Public communication. Key differences included Dutch and American professionals emphasizing potential health benefits, while British participants prioritized identifying the appropriate screening population and suitable test. The authors conclude that professionals see potential in less-invasive screening but underscore the need for studies on benefits, harms, and the target population before widespread implementation. Limitations include potential participation bias, exclusion of public perspectives, and that concept mapping generates insights rather than testing null hypotheses.